Talk:Army Men: Sarge's Heroes
Does the article need to be condensed? On initial review, it was clear to me that there is too much detail. The article needs to be balanced, there's no need to break down every single criticism of the controls of the game when you can say that the controls were panned. We also don't need to add multiple pictures of plastic army men toys to show that the series is based on them among other additions.
The user who made these edits took offense to the condensing and on further review I think it would have been better to start a talkpage here instead. PaulRKil (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, the article's perfectly fine. Perhaps slightly too detailed, but nothing major. Your revision took an article which was close to GA-quality down to start-class. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Uninvolved with the dispute but I agree with Airship here. Some parts of the article do seem to have a little bit too much detail. For example, I'm betting that someone could condense the critical response section by at least 20-25% without really losing much, and eight subsections is a lot even for major video games. The lead could also be cut down a bit, at least from what I can tell.
- However, the recent edits went too far in the opposite direction, trimming about 80% of the article and deleting the entirety of the "background", "development", and "legacy" sections. That basically left the page as a start-class article, as major aspects of the subject were no longer even mentioned in the article. Articles don't need to be overly detailed, but neither should they be cut down drastically; if people want a short and sweet overview, that is what the WP:LEAD is supposed to provide. Epicgenius (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think that was what I originally was going for but may have gone overboard. Never really dipped my feet into editing video games but wanted to give it a crack. I’ll maybe revisit it with your input, thanks! PaulRKil (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- @PaulRKil, you're welcome; I'm glad to help.@JPxG, since you reverted Airship's earlier edit that trimmed the "Critical reception" section, I should just note that I actually suggested trimming that section (and in fact, I'd argue that more could have been cut). For example, do we need the large quote after
Lopez provided a detailed summary of this in his Nintendo 64 review
? I would argue no, and I'd further surmise that at least 20% of the section could be trimmed altogether or summarized more concisely, but I'm bringing this up because you may have a different viewpoint. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)- JPxG, do you have any input? If not, I'll go ahead and restore my trim. Best, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- @PaulRKil, you're welcome; I'm glad to help.@JPxG, since you reverted Airship's earlier edit that trimmed the "Critical reception" section, I should just note that I actually suggested trimming that section (and in fact, I'd argue that more could have been cut). For example, do we need the large quote after
- I think that was what I originally was going for but may have gone overboard. Never really dipped my feet into editing video games but wanted to give it a crack. I’ll maybe revisit it with your input, thanks! PaulRKil (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)